# Date: 1904-01-17

The following letter from Yu. O. Martov of January 17 is a reply to the letter of F. V. Lengnik and V. I. Lenin of January 8 and to the letter of F. V. Lengnik sent the day before (January 16).

## 161.
## YU. O. MARTOV — F. V. LENGNIK.

January 17 [1904. Geneva.]

Esteemed comrade! On behalf of the Editorial Board, I have the honor to respond to your letter of January 8¹.

— We did not ask you what you think about the legitimacy of the "unanimously co-opted Editorial Board," because whatever you might think about it, this could not have affected the authority of the Editorial Board in the eyes of the Party. Since, according to our statute, which you have probably by now studied, the Editorial Board can co-opt only unanimously, your words about "unanimous co-option" must be understood as an emphasis on the fact that the question of this co-option had to be decided by the vote of a single member of the Editorial Board alone. Be calm, comrade: the members of the Editorial Board co-opted by Plekhanov alone feel themselves no less "legitimate" members than members of the C.C., elected at the Congress by the majority of no fewer than 4 votes. — We began to speak with you about "legitimacy" only because, while turning to our assistance in carrying out the function entrusted to you by the Party of finding the means for publishing literature, you and your comrades at the same time make such declarations as, while inspiring in Party members and sympathizers fears of possible new Party scandals and, as you aptly point out, undermining the "credit that is built up over years," thereby weaken their readiness to contribute their means to the central treasury. We pointed this out to you not in order to encroach upon the freedom of criticism of members of your collegium, as you, it seems, understood it, but in order to relieve ourselves of responsibility for a possible failure of our attempts to obtain money for the treasury, which you prove unable to replenish. You see, therefore, to what degree superfluous are your lengthy declarations about your readiness to expose your breast to the polemical arrows (a readiness, moreover, already sufficiently attested to by your previous letters, which asked for the destruction of the League protocols² — the only document "directed" against you), and how little such a deviation from the substance of the matter can advance us. In vain you, deviating in this direction, forgot to answer our indication that you persistently and contrary to the statute deprive the Editorial Board of the possibility of learning about the state of affairs in Russia and about the success of the work of the C.C., without which information we shall scarcely succeed in convincing our acquaintances that their monetary assistance is necessary and will produce useful results for the cause. In vain do you consider it necessary to warn that one should not "lay out before everyone and anyone (?!) everything that may come to mind, heated by struggle"*. If you, comrade, had given corresponding instructions in time to your agents before their appearances at public meetings and to your comrades in the C.C. before their appearances in print (correspondingly arranging the style of your speeches), then we, perhaps, might have had one fewer reason to distress you (and ourselves) with considerations about the difficulty of collecting money under the aforementioned conditions.

We also ask you to take the trouble to explain intelligibly what you mean by your enigmatic words to the effect that "Party duty would require giving the possibility of free influence over monetary sources (!) to the other side as well." The owners of those funds, about which you have only spoken with the representative of the Editorial Board (the Editorial Board knows of no others), are familiar both to you and to Comrade Lenin, and the latter has on more than one occasion already turned to them, and in your terminology "laid out" concerning the "opposing side" a great deal of what could undermine the credit . . . of the institution in whose name he appealed: we do not intend to place any obstacles to your "free influence over monetary sources" (it would be more fitting to say: over the good will of their owners) and once again ask you to communicate which sources and what obstacles you have in mind.

* Bear in mind that the persons known to you who have money at their disposal represent themselves not as "money bags," but as comrades of the Party, in relation to whom complete sincerity is obligatory and who will not give money without being convinced that it will be spent productively.

## YU. O. MARTOV
— F. V. LENGNIK

The conclusion of your letter, which bears the character of a direct threat, will be taken note of by the Editorial Board³. We consider it beneath our dignity to respond to such declarations.

On behalf of the Editorial Board, L. Martov.

P.S. Just now received your new letter with a demand for 1,500 rubles⁴. Before seeking an "emergency" reply to it, take the trouble to honor me with an answer to the 3 inquiries already sent to you long ago⁵: 1) whether you intend to arrange to supply the Editorial Board with the literature it needs? 2) who at present comprises the membership of the C.C. (according to § 1 of the statute you must do this)? 3) whether you intend to carry out the decision unanimously adopted by the Council concerning the procedure for determining the number of copies of our publications to be released and inform me of your opinion about [the necessary number] in what number of copies should the pamphlet "Liberals and Socialists" be published? — Beyond that, you pledged yourself to provide Comrade Blumenfeld with a meeting at the C.C. in Russia and did not do so, while moreover not appearing at the meeting you yourself appointed. Until you fulfill your obligations toward the C.O., do not expect from us any reply to your letters.

1 See above, document 154, pp. 130–132.

2 Nowhere in "previous letters" did F. V. Lengnik "request the destruction of the League protocols." At most, what he at one time intended to do was, with Plekhanov's assistance through the Party Council, to prevent the publication of the full text of the Congress protocols of the League in view of the "bouquet" of polemic that Martov's counter-report represented at the League Congress. But this intention of F. V. Lengnik apparently remained unexecuted (see above, document 118, pp. 22–24). In the official correspondence of the foreign representative of the C.C. with the Editorial Board of the C.O., there is only one following passage where the League protocols are directly mentioned: "It is not yet too late to ensure this peace [in the Party], it is not yet too late to remove from public knowledge and from enemies the details of the split and speeches about impropriety and false lists — speeches which will probably be used even by the Moscow Gazette. I guarantee that the "majority" will readily agree to consign all this filth to oblivion, provided that good peace in the Party is ensured" (letter on behalf of the foreign representative of the C.C. to the Editorial Board of the C.O. of December 12, composed by V. I. Lenin, — above, document 129, p. 50). As we see, this joint declaration of Lenin and Lengnik bears very little resemblance to a "request for the destruction of the League protocols."

3 Here are meant the following concluding words of the letter from F. V. Lengnik and V. I. Lenin to the Editorial Board of the C.O. of January 8 (above, document 154): "I request that the Editorial Board be concerned that the money, on which the C.C. was counting, distributing the money at its disposal between Russia and abroad, should be received in the Central Treasury as soon as possible. Otherwise, I cannot vouch that it will not be necessary to close the printing shop until new receipts in the foreign treasury of the Party."

4 See the preceding letter of F. V. Lengnik of January 16 (document 160).

5 The three inquiries enumerated further by Martov comprised the content of his letter of January 8 (above, document 155, pp. 133–134).